RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. >>>>>>

This paralells attempts to bring down other crime organizations, and comes down to the fact that "we know they did it, but can we prove it, and can we really stand up to such a large organization?" I'm not sure it will amount to much, but I would love to see it happen.

My non educated guess would be that if me or thee were caught red-handed covering up for a serial kiddy-fiddler that we would face the full wrath of the law.

Aiding and abetting, obstructing justice, accessory to the crime ... some charge like that?

I think a version of the rule that "if you kill one man that makes you a murderer but if you kill tens or hundreds of thousand of men then Margaret Thatcher will invite you to her house for tea" will apply here though.

I guess the 'correct' buddhist position is to wish an end to whatever sufferings cause these preists to fiddle with kiddies in the first place and thus knock this very ugly cycle of 'suffering begetting more suffering' on the head for once and for all.

That and to wish that the child victims and their families all find ways to move on from their experiences free from hatred, unforgiveness and regrets.

I would suggest that a skillful response might be the wish for an end to all sufferings experienced by perpetrator and victim alike, while actively helping to stop harm from continuing to go on unchecked, here and now. I do not consider strong action and the wish for an to suffering, to be mutually exclusive. If harm is still happening and being ignored, the victims should not just 'move on' but press on. It is essential for victims to work with their own hatred, anger and wishes for revenge, because it is essential that these acts are brought to the publics attention in a calm non-reactive manner so that everyone involved can get the help they need, making sure that other little children do not suffer a similar fate.

Silence is the irresponsibility like sweeping it under the doormat. Children, often too young to understand what is happening and afraid to tell it, explain it not clear.

When they dare talk and the police is involved, those are checking and ascertaining or not the honesty by the reaction of the children, it can, even they ascertain but there are no witnesses (!), the case remains open without something is done.

They ask in case some new cases or supicious acts should be seen, to prevent them. So this keeps the door open, while one has not everywhere the right to talk about to prevent others when there are no witnesses.

The children mostly don't understand compassion for the unhealthy state of mind of the perpetuator and often cannot have a peaceful relationship later (like marriage) without many psychological problems. There is also the harmed self, the view on that as something dirty. Schoolresults are going down, nightmares, depression.

The Pope can include strong rules in the chirch's responsability to prevent these cases of innocent children and other easy victims.

I'm not familiar with the details of what happened, but if this Pope is indeed guilty of covering up these crimes, then he should be punished like anyone else.

The next question is "What would a suitable punishment for the Pope be?" It's easy to think of very violent, grotesque ones, but those aren't Buddhist. If he's guilty, I would like to see him performing tiring acts of community service, such as hiking up mountains to deliver food and medical supplies to poor villagers.

I think Mr. Dawkins has a lot of courage and reminds us that simply wearing a robe and a hat won't allow one to escape one's bad karma.

In training men for priesthood he assured that "we will do everything we can to weigh the authenticity of their vocation and make every effort to accompany priests along their journey, so that the Lord will protect them and watch over them in troubled situations and amid life’s dangers."

[i]RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

A formerly well-respected scientist goes off the deep-end.

Extreme action is often used to illustrate a point.

If Pope Benedict XVI were an American citizen covering up a vast child-abuse network, the government would be able to make one heck of a RICO case.

The Catholic Church is not a child-abuse network and the Pope is grappling with these issues (with some obvious criticism) apparently as best he can. If in fact he covered up cases in Germany abusing his power as a Cardinal (or Arch Bishop - I can't remember which) then this will further sully the reputation of the Catholic Church and perhaps set the stage for legal action from governments.

But Dawkins' actions and words are not made from a legal basis and almost certainly are a result of his fanatical atheist position. And this is what I was commenting on.

Anyone else notice how the new athiest movement has all the characteristics of an organized religion? It has a creed, definite figureheads, doctrine that must be followed or lest one be ridiculed and banished and some even drive around in buses on recruiting drives.

Huseng wrote:Anyone else notice how the new athiest movement has all the characteristics of an organized religion? It has a creed, definite figureheads, doctrine that must be followed or lest one be ridiculed and banished and some even drive around in buses on recruiting drives.

kirtu wrote:The Catholic Church is not a child-abuse network and the Pope is grappling with these issues (with some obvious criticism) apparently as best he can. If in fact he covered up cases in Germany abusing his power as a Cardinal (or Arch Bishop - I can't remember which) then this will further sully the reputation of the Catholic Church and perhaps set the stage for legal action from governments.

But Dawkins' actions and words are not made from a legal basis and almost certainly are a result of his fanatical atheist position. And this is what I was commenting on.

Kirt

I didn't say the Roman Catholic Church was a child-abuse network. However, abused people coming forward in the last fifteen years or so, and the reaction of the Vatican authorities, have made it plain that a child-abuse network did exist within it.\

Dawkins's words are not based in law? The British have no equivalent of the American citizen's arrest? The Roman Catholic Church and its current Pope bear no responsibility for worldwide child abuse and its cover-up for at least decades, if not longer?

Huseng wrote:Anyone else notice how the new athiest movement has all the characteristics of an organized religion? It has a creed, definite figureheads, doctrine that must be followed or lest one be ridiculed and banished and some even drive around in buses on recruiting drives.

Yes, it seems to me that contemporary Atheism is becoming difficult to differentiate from traditional religion.

The only difference I can see at times is a lack of belief in god and that isn't much of a difference.

Huseng wrote:Anyone else notice how the new athiest movement has all the characteristics of an organized religion? It has a creed, definite figureheads, doctrine that must be followed or lest one be ridiculed and banished and some even drive around in buses on recruiting drives.

Yes, it seems to me that contemporary Atheism is becoming difficult to differentiate from traditional religion.

The only difference I can see at times is a lack of belief in god and that isn't much of a difference.

That's the mark of the new religion: you verbally affirm that you do not believe in god and then probably ridicule everyone else who does while proclaiming yourself a "rationalist".

Back in Canada at my old university they are a powerful student organization. They managed to get the university to remove some religious references from the graduation ceremony (though not all of them as I recall) and stirred about a lot of debate with the monotheists (Muslim and Christian groups).

I think one must also be aware of the Malthusian / Darwinian heart of this movement.

The natural selection or the "right of might" eugenics scientific dictatorship ideologue that Huxley warned us, or gave rise to the idea, many years ago. The basic idea in its simple form is all life is merely explained by genetics and science and therefore no divine rights inherent and inalienable for the human species. However faith and religion says otherwise.

All elitist groups over the centuries have pedophilia at its center, that's something that was given scientific cover in the 1950's 60's by the evil quack experiments and trash science of the Kinsey institute, don't take my word for it but research for yourselves, but be warned, it takes you to places that might be very uncomfortable and disturbing.

Take the blue pill and the dream continues, take the red pill and see how far the rabbit hole goes.